From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4726A1381F3 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 00:45:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8E84F21C002; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 00:45:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD7ADE055B for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 00:44:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.26.5] (ip98-164-195-43.oc.oc.cox.net [98.164.195.43]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zmedico) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C2EF833DBBC; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 00:44:26 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <50C7D369.2060204@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 16:44:25 -0800 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org CC: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting EAPI 5 *use.stable.mask to work in gx86? References: <20121210222717.6424ef66@pomiocik.lan> <50C6D41B.703@gentoo.org> <20121211224558.531d438d@pomiocik.lan> In-Reply-To: <20121211224558.531d438d@pomiocik.lan> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 19d8e7af-70f3-4f8c-8391-e3ea8f81865c X-Archives-Hash: 307d1845dedaa4c224ebd64b0ebc00af On 12/11/2012 01:45 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 22:35:07 -0800 > Zac Medico wrote: > >> On 12/10/2012 01:27 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> 1) duplicate most of the major profiles. Make an EAPI 5-enabled wrapper >>> profiles which will provide the *use.stable.mask files. Require users >>> to migrate to those profiles after getting an EAPI 5 capable package >>> manager (how?). Possibly mask the relevant flags completely in other >>> profiles. >> >> I think this is the obvious solution. You can make users migrate by >> adding "deprecated" files to the old profiles. > > To be honest, I don't see much benefit from it compared to not having > the *stable.use.mask files at all and just adding separate stable > profiles. The main use case for *use.stable.mask that I'm aware of is that it's handy for masking flags to pass repoman checks. For example, sys-apps/portage could use it for the pypy1_9 flag. Otherwise, we have to mask that flag for a given portage version before we can add stable keywords. -- Thanks, Zac